In some of the music communities I’m in the content creators are already telling their userbase to go follow them on threads. They’re all talking about some kind of beef between Elon and Mark and the possibility of a boxing match… Mark was right to call the people he’s leaching off of fucking idiots.

  • esmazer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    1 year ago

    Even if you get them to care once you show them all they need to do to have a shred of privacy they shrug say something along the lines of “well I don’t have anything to hide anyways” and go back to their merry way. The path of least resistance will always win sadly

  • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The Average person, in my experience, doesnt give a shit about their privacy…because they are stuck on the notion of “what do I have to hide? I didnt do anything wrong!” with a heaping helping of not wanting to give up convenience on top of it.

    And all attempts to explain them that you dont have to have anything to hide for your privacy to be important and be protected fall on deaf ears and accusations that you, the one trying to protect them must be some kind of bad/evil/criminal person to be that concerned with privacy.

    These people tend to be absolute delights to deal with when their shit gets stolen, and they expect everyone else to fix it for them.

  • 🐱TheCat@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m just curious if you’re a tech worker? (or a teenager interested in tech)

    I ask because I feel like people who work in tech are basically exposed to the dangers of web privacy all the time. I remember having to implement a facebook pixel on a website, and realizing the network of surveillance that facebook have spread across the web at that time. So I have pretty decent privacy behaviors, still far from great but maybe slightly above average.

    But when I go to the doctor and I mention how often I eat fast food and drink alcohol, or when I go to the dentist and admit I don’t floss everyday - I’m sure those people are thinking ‘most people seriously don’t care about their health’. They might stop short of ‘fucking idiot’, hopefully.

    • deong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d also say that those health issues are much more practically impactful than Instagram showing you ads for luggage when you’ve bought a plane ticket.

      Caring about ad tech is a hobby. It’s as good a hobby as any other, but that’s what it is.

      • 🐱TheCat@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure I think thats fair. My larger point is that everyone is biased over time by their hobbies and professions, and we should be careful how harshly we judge others by our yardstick.

      • cyanarchy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can be casual about it, but I don’t think it’s a hobby to seek to understand something that you’re very nearly forced to coexist with. I have to acknowledge there’s ideology behind statements like this, but it’s more analogous to knowing your enemy’s capabilities. It’s a necessary prerequisite to forming an effective defense.

        But I’ve come to understand many people don’t share my antagonistic mindset. That’s fine, but they should still understand the interactions they’re having with these systems in even just the vaguest terms, because the effect on their lives is very tangible.

        • deong@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m saying the very idea that you need to ever even think about this as a defense against the enemy is the hobby. There’s only a battle to be fought here if you want there to be, and most people don’t want that. The impact on their lives is not actually tangible. Ad tech doesn’t really hurt anyone. No one likes it, and at best, it feels a little gross, but feeling vaguely icky is not the kind of tangible impact that reliably drives people to action. What happens to you when Facebook or Google bundle you into anonymized groups of eyeballs and promise advertisers that they’ll show you ads relevant to the profile they’ve built of you? Nothing really. If you think about the way they built that profile by tracking your every move online, then yes, it feels creepy, but that’s it.

  • erici@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    1 year ago

    I stopped using Facebook 10 years ago, but I’m loathed to actually delete my account because every once in a while, a long lost friend or relative contacts me there. It would be a shame to lose touch with people. Ultimately I care about that more than privacy. It’s the same with Whatsapp. I’ve made a concerted effort to convince my immediate family to try XMPP, Delta Chat and Signal, but they just won’t install another app unless everyone they know is using it. I find it a bit frustrating, but that’s reality. So I have to keep using Whatsapp.

    • Marxine@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      We can always keep a never in 10 years updated profile active for family and stuff. The biggest danger is for active users after all: they’re the most vulnerable to targeted media manipulation.

      By being present in their lives (while giving up as few data as possible to big corporations) they can have by their side someone with good advices on privacy, manufactured consent, rights violations and adjacent topics. Alienating ourselves from them isn’t really beneficial in the long run.

      I use WhatsApp as well for the people I keep in touch with, and have an active Instagram account where I use only the chat feature. It’s enough to keep up with the people in my life.

      For whoever is even more privacy concerned, it’s possible to run those apps in sandboxed mode through some apps.

      • Ooops@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        I use WhatsApp as well for the people I keep in touch with

        And everyone in your address book not using WhatsApp should come by once in a while and slap you for selling their numbers for your convenience… You are right… keeping a basically inactive Facebook profile is harmless in comparison.

        • Marxine@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They all are already on WhatsApp though. All my phone contacts are WhatsApp contacts already (and have been before I added them).

          If I need to interact with anyone who desires ultmost privacy I’m not idiot enough to ask for their phone number, and they’d be really out of their mind to share if that’s the case.

          But sure, I guess a cousin or smth might want to slap me in the face for “selling” data they already sold themselves years prior.

        • lichtmetzger@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I live in Germany and everyone here uses WhatsApp. If you decide to uninstall it, you’re cut off from 95% of your friends, family and your coworkers.

          It’s not an option to not use it, sadly. From what I understand, it’s like iMessage in the USA. Extreme monopoly and very hard to break out of it.

          • Ooops@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I live in Germany

            Same here… and most of my contact list (and I) dropped WhatsApp when Meta bought them or a year later when the eavesdropping and phoning home to Meta was publically discussed in the media. The remaining minority is able to use another alternative on top of WhatsApp (that’s one of the reason I like to remond them that they provide Meta with data from the people opting out…). That was also nearly a decade ago (2014/2015), so pretending that you need to use WhatsApp in 2023 is indeed a choice.

            • lichtmetzger@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              pretending that you need to use WhatsApp in 2023 is indeed a choice

              It’s not as easy as you make it sound. Between 2015 and 2022, Whatsapp’s marketshare has increased a lot in Germany. So it might’ve been comparatively easy to drop it 8 years ago. It’s not anymore.

              Maybe I’d be able to convince a lot of my friends to install another app just for me. But it would be hard to do and involve a lot of arguing on my end. I’m not a missionary and I choose to spend my lifetime for other, more important things.

              • Ooops@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Or maybe you would realize that a lot of people think the same but are also convinced to be alone and unable to change anything… Just like it happened for me back then the moment the first few made the effort to change. We will never know.

  • Ste@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    They probably don’t know what actually involves giving away their data and what actually concretely means. I’m a tech guy, developer, here in the Fediverse and neither I do know actually what it means. It’s the lack of information the problem. I could imagine it though, but it’s not the same thing. I could imagine that with my data big corps become more powerful, creating more addicting ads, contents and algorithms that eventually will fuck up the world even more. And that’s a nightmare, I know. Metaphorically it’s like intensive farming. “I eat meat because I love it and I can’t give up on it” and as soon as no one sees what actually happens to the animals inside those farmings, no one cares.

    • U de Recife@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      They are my mother, father, and everyone else. Life’s hard, and too many things compete for our attention.

      You’re right. Indiscriminate data collection is like the meat industry. Some people may find abhorrent how animals are treated, even how destructive the whole thing can be. But ultimately, out of sight is out of mind, right?

      Like you said, the same with privacy. Apps are shiny, addictive, and seem to be given away for free. Then life happens, the mind becomes busy with what holds its attention.

      We’re doomed because the game being played is simply too complex for anyone make sense of it. Any competing insight is immediately drowned under the massive torrent of data we’re all subjected to.

    • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      One problem is that it’s very hard to quantify how much our privacy, our data, is worth. There’s money to be made with it, but we, average people, have no idea how any of that works. This leads to general indifference.

      Another problem I see is that most people don’t correlate their continuously worse online experience with being spied. Every facebook change led to lots complaints, but people didn’t quit, they just ate shit until they stopped complaining. Same with Twitter, Insta, Google, Youtube. Since the enshittification happens gradually, they fail to correlate one thing with another.

  • geno@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I really think this thread is a great example of why the average person doesn’t care that much.

    The whole thread is full of comments like “the issues caused by giving away all your data are too abstract, too far away, or too difficult to understand”. This is true by the way, I completely agree.

    But I haven’t seen a single comment trying to explain those possible issues in an easily understandable way. The average person (or, at least me) reading threads like this won’t learn anything new. Give me a practical issue that I might face, and if I agree that it’s an issue, I’ll focus more on avoiding that issue.

    In other words, an example:

    • Let’s say I’m a person using lemmy/mastodon, only using privacy-focused search engines etc.
    • If I would now change to using facebook/threads, started using Chrome as my browser, etc the usual mainstream tracking stuff - what problems can this cause for me in the future?

    PS. I do agree with the notion of “minimize the data you give away”, which is one reason I’m here, but I really don’t have an answer for these questions. I’m like “I understand the point of privacy, but can’t explain the reasons”.

    • HardlightCereal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      If an algorithm knows exactly who you are, then it knows how you think, and it knows what sort of content will manipulate you politically. And right wing political content is profitable. It’s called the alt right pipeline. Most people have some kind of argument that will manage to radicalise them to any position you can name. Through correlative learning, an algorithm will look at how people like you changed their views, and it’ll send you down the same path. It’s easy.

      • XiELEd@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Cambridge Analytica. Not only did they influence the elections and general political attitude of the Philippines, it also affected US elections as well. I think there was a genocide that was caused by targeted campaigns too, not sure where it happened, though.

        • joel_feila@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          don’t forget Facebook knowing that their programs increased teen suicide rated but still stayed course because changing that negative content would lower revenue

      • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t you feel like awareness of it can be the number one thing to protect you from the manipulation that is rampant? I look at everything and say that is trying to change my mind. Unfortunately, with that comes this cynicism that I’m being sold to all the time and whatnot. But if I happen to hop on a browser that doesn’t have AdBlock, I don’t walk away having spent money on snake oil, or I don’t go sign up for my local right wing political action committee, because I’ve been made aware consistently that everything is aimed at getting me to give something.

        And let’s be real, we all remember the constant reference to the Reddit hivemind. If we’re saying they’re wasn’t some sort of external influence that landed everyone on the same wavelength, that feels naive. Or I’m a cynic and can’t enjoy anything anymore.

        • HardlightCereal@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, awareness isn’t the number 1 protection, it’s the number 3 protection. The number 1 protection is actually having a nuanced understanding of the issues so that when propaganda tries to prey on your misconceptions, it can’t find any. And the number 2 protection is avoiding propaganda, because anything starts to sound persuasive if it’s repeated enough. Awareness is important, but it’s just not as effective as those two other protections. It has too many weaknesses.

          • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think that’s pretty well put and I’ll agree with it.

            In spite of everything telling me not to I still pop over to Reddit because I think there is still value there, even if I have to wade through the bullshit and the bots and whatever. A couple subs weren’t infested with shit yet. But for sure it’s a risk assessment, and I think I got it, but probably I’m not as smart as I think.

    • AnonStoleMyPants@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve always felt like data gathering is kind of like lobbying. It is not directed toward you in person. It is used to shift the way people think and their opinions on topics.

      A company / non-profit / movement / whatever lobbying towards a goal might be buying lunches or making seminars and talking about their point with selected group of people who have a say in a topic. Or they might not but they are in the vicinity of the topic or perhaps they are a group that a the company feels like they do not know what the fuck they are talking about and that needs to change.

      These are not directed toward you but to a group of people whom you most likely have nothing to do with. This group has power to change something. Whether for good or for bad, that depends who doing the lobbying and for what purpose and how you think about the topic.

      Data gathering is similar. This data that is being gathered is not identifiable to you (or it can be but this is not what I am talking about) but it gets clumped together with a buuuuunch of people. This bunch might be people from country x or Christians or people who like Mc Donald’s or who are against gun-rights or pro abortion or people whom think that companies should not be pushing climate change responsibility to the consumer. This clump of people are the same bunch that the lobbyists are targeting. But they do not have direct power over a subject, in general. Point being that even if most of the people have no power over a topic, some of them might (they might hold power oma person company deciding whether to do more against climate change). And even if they do not, they will converse about the topic and this will shift the general consensus around a topic.

      And this bunch of people can be very accurately targeted. People in their 20-30s, who graduated (or will soon) from a university that are most likely to go work in high-tech companies in or in the government who have people around them (family, friends) that are against gun-rights but still own guns and do hunting? Ezpz. Or perhaps own a car and drive a lot and have relatives far enough that car is a necessity but have shifted their thinking being more against cars? Np.

      The problem is that this does not easily be used against you in particular. But it can be used against a group of people that you are a part of. It is used to shift the way we think as a community. It is used to push ads and news articles (or just the topics of articles because glancing it also works) to you, comments in twitter, posts in Facebook, and change the search results that you might see. Kind of like ads as well; ads work really well even though lots (most?) people would say that ads don’t make them buy a product and only annoy them. Advertisers aren’t dumb, they know exactly what people think and how they function, and ads work.

      And again to reiterate, it has nothing to do with you. You are a blip. But you are a part of a larger community and in order to shift that community toward something all of its little bits and pieces need to be moved toward that target. Not all of them need to move toward that target. Just enough.

      This got a bit rambly I think but anyhooo it’s kinda how I see it.

      • Dae@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        So, if I understand correctly, and please correct me if I’m wrong, but the simplified version of this is: data collection allows massive cooperations to target Communities of Interest (CoI) and manipulate them by collectively altering their digital perception via a barrage of targeted advertisements, promoted articles and suggested social media posts?

        And all of this leads to an eventual shift in the opinions and desires of said CoIs, leading to what the company would deem desirable behavior, be it growing apathetic to digital privacy, buying their product or growing more engaged with their platform?

    • ANGRY_MAPLE@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Bad actors may use it to manipulate you or cause problems in other aspects of your life (HELLO data breaches!).

      This is a hypothetical. Think about all of the normal stuff people could see about you on Facebook. Would you also want those strangers to have your other personal information and possibly passwords? How about your boss? School? Insurance agency? Bank? Someone who works at one of those places, and still remembers that information after they clock out?

      Let’s say there isn’t a data breach. They also use that information to try to get you to click ads, even if those ads might be unsafe to click.

      Please answer something for me. What is it that makes you think that Zuckerberg would act in your best interests? What would stop him from turning around, selling data again? How can you know that he will keep that data in trustworthy spaces, and away from bad actors?

      I wouldn’t even give my own parents access to that level of information unless I absolutely had to. I’m certainly not happier about a stranger having access to it.

    • joel_feila@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I remember back when Snowgen first leaked all of that imfo about government tracking. One show, either the daily show or colbert report, did an episode about it. Almost no one they talked to cared until they mentioned the government can also track your dick pics.

  • AnyProgressIsGood@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ll go a step more general. People can’t be inconvenienced. Climate change,politics,etc…

    If it slightly inconveniences people you’ll need a good leader to push it

    • thehatfox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      All many people care about is bread and circuses. Unless their sustenance and distractions are taken away they are complacent.

    • gthutbwdy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      People join massive protest all around the world for these things. They are willing to spend a day walking around and yelling even if it is an inconvenience.

      It is lack of organizing and having a trust that if we just vote for right politician it will be solved. For decades of elections, nothing changed.

      We need to organize ourselves as the people, like they do in some countries. Stop the traffic, organize in shifts to stay on road blocking all gas powered trucks. You need to stop businesses from operating normally to give the system some reason to change, instead of just ignoring us and promising us that next election it will be better.

      Same for soical media, do the internet equivalent of blockades, DDOS them like anonymous did. They can’t arrest us all. And organize to block police cars when they try to make an example of the few.

  • w3dd1e@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s like music streaming. The streaming quality is worse and wireless earbuds don’t sound great, but the convenience of it all made that industry huge.

    Convenience over quality.

    • arefx@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I mean I use galaxy buds at work installing flooring and I love it, but at home I listen to vinyl or the very least flacc with good headphones… but I guess im not the average person in this situation

      • PostalDude@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Have a huge vynl collection, family doesn’t understand why I can’t just stream my music. They’ll never know the sweet sound of vynl.

    • mister_flibble@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, I blame Apple and the general trend of aggressively bland minimalism for the wireless earbud thing. You’re not wrong though.

      • BURN@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I resisted wireless earbuds forever (had the lightning -> 3.5mm adapter for quite a while) and I’ll never go back to wired earbuds on my phone. The ability to set my phone down while I’m doing a task with headphones in is a godsend for my ADHD.

        The wire didn’t add sound quality for 99% of people who were using default Apple headphones or some $10 junk from Walmart anyways.

  • Leyla :)@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    Zuck is proof that sociopaths and narcissists run the world. This is obvious theater at this point.

    • Shatterdome@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      48
      ·
      1 year ago

      You are the kind of person that openly insults people and then gets mad when people insult you huh?

      • tryagain@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Congratulations! You have been my first downvote on Lemmy! You said a dumb thing.

      • Leyla :)@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Your mom would have had a happy life if she swallowed, instead she’s stuck with a 10k calorie a day NEET who white knights for Zuckerberg. Either that or you’re Zuckerberg, not sure what’s worse

          • Mdotaut801@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re a zuck sucker. Whatever they are is not bad compared to you. A brown noser of zuck taints.

            • Shatterdome@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              So the only two options you see are to insult someone by calling them a sociopath/narcissist or you are a sympathizer… very myopic.

              I guess your guys are all highly trained psychiatric professionals. It must be me that’s wrong…

              Carry on insulting people that have built more then you ever will I guess. Zuckerberg sucks but not as much as your guys.

  • __forward__@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ultimately, even for me as someone who cares about it, it’s just become one of those things that I don’t prioritize. Life is hard and at some point I’d rather get something cool done with gmail reading all my private conversations than struggle with my own email server.

    Not saying it’s a great choice but ultimately life is short and we need to focus on doing what feels right. People have to pick their battles and that’s life.

    • gthutbwdy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most of these battles are very interconnected. Destroying one part of this horrible system will leave a flank open for the rest to fall.

      They need to spy on us, so they can stop any real fight, riot against other issues that are plaguing us, like inflation, climate change and etc.

  • ach@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    First of all most people, not just the average person, simply do not grasp what privacy is exactly - especially in the US, where the view on privacy is skewed by its obsolete constitution.

    I mean, just the fact that anyone would think if you personally don’t mind sharing personal affairs or being public, then privacy isn’t much of a concern proves the lack of understanding of that principle. It’s like saying, I’m not religious so neither the lack of freedom of religion or the separation of church and state would have any impact on me.

    The most important function of the human right to privacy is not the thwarting of interference with one’s property or dignity, it’s the maintenance of the control and power an individual has over their own self - and by extension that of a people.

    A simple example: If I give you my phone number, I give away some control over myself because you now have to power to use that property however it fits you. That may mean to just keep in touch with me, to save the number in your contact list that is accessible to ChatGPT, Tiktok or some malware on your phone, or share it with someone who wants to dig up some dirt on me.

    The key point is not whether any of the possibilities affect or matter to you but whether you would have any say in how that information is obtained, handled, kept, etc. The effect of the resulting consequences may appear only gradually and sometimes take years but those in control ultimately shape politics, the economy, culture, society. This is also one of the reasons why the US is run by so many monopolies and oligopolies in their respective market segments.

  • Matt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Ultimately, it’s because the concerns of privacy are simply too far removed from people, or they trust certain entities more than others.

    For example, if your next door neighbour knows all your browsing history, people would be bothered, but people are not bothered if Google knows as it feels they would have no direct effect on their life, whereas your next door neighbour might.

    This can be easily seen in the whole discussion regarding privacy on Mastodon.

    A lot of people refuse to use Mastodon over Twitter, because “Mastodon admins can see my DMs”, even though Twitter absolutely could as well (Twitter apparently has encrypted DMs since May 2023 though). The reason for this is they see a Mastodon admin as someone who could potentially have an effect on their digital life, whereas they trust Twitter not to do anything with the data since they’re a big corporation who has nothing to do with their personal life.

    Unless it is an effect they can directly observe (or imagine to occur), people simply don’t care. This applies to almost all discussions around the big picture, such as things like climate change or unions, or whatever.

    Whether we like it or not, people absolutely trust corporations.

    • Stanford@discuss.as200950.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would not say, people absolutely trust corporations.
      You can probably ask any stranger o the street if Facebook is trustworthy and they all would say something about FB doing weird stuff with their data.

      They all know!
      But people have a limit on how many issues they can care about.
      We decided that privacy is an issue, others might decide that the issues their sister is facing in life are an issue, or just how to pay the next month’s rent.

      So, they just use Facebook, google and co. because that is what works, what is there and done. No time to think any further about it!

      So, if you wanna get wide adoption for privacy-friendly alternatives, stop solely selling the privacy aspect. The fediverse is great, but all the people who care about the benefits of it are already here. Now try to reach those who don’t care that Twitter is a mess, they are just there because all the others are too.
      They use it to communicate and not because it is great. The same applies to most other platforms too.
      I liked Reddit because it’s one platform where you find literally anything! You wanna talk about energy drinks? There is a subreddit.
      You wanna know what this thing is you just found on the street? Just post a picture someone definitely knows!

      • Matt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        True, the claim that people “absolutely trust corporations” is definitely hyperbole, but I would say they most certainly have some implicit trust for them in a way that people might not trust a volunteer.